Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-2jptb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-27T09:11:09.195Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

CHAPTER XXVII - IMMIGRANTS FROM THE NORTH

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2008

By
R. A. Crossland
Edited by
I. E. S. Edwards ,
C. J. Gadd  and
N. G. L. Hammond
R. A. Crossland
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Get access

Summary

THE PROBLEM OF THE INDO-EUROPEANS

For several thousand years before the third millennium b.c. the new way of life based on agriculture, which had developed in the Near East and perhaps also in certain adjacent areas, spread out of these regions into lands which lay around them. There is no doubt that it was disseminated mainly by peoples or smaller groups who migrated out of its original centres. Then the trend was largely reversed. In the third millennium ‘barbarians’ moved into Mesopotamia. Semites from poorer lands to the west settled in the south in such numbers that their language superseded that of the Sumerians, although they adopted Sumerian civilization. Gutian invaders from the highlands to the east ruled southern Iraq during the twenty-second century, but they proved less assimilable and were eventually expelled. After c. 2000 b.c. similar intrusions had more important results. The infiltration of Semitic tribes, ‘Amorites’, from Syria into Mesopotamia continued, but the migrations which caused the greatest changes appear to have come from further north.

In many cases the names of the incoming peoples have not been preserved in the records of older civilized states or in documents in their own languages. The earliest of them spoke languages of various types and affiliations. But most of those who came from the north and who are identified for the first time after c. 2000 b.c. spoke languages which belong to the ‘Indo-European’ family.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Ancient History
, pp. 824 - 876
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bailey, H. W. ‘Recent work in “Tokharian”.’ In Transactions of the Philosophical Society. 1947 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balkan, K. Kassitenstudien, I: Die Sprache der Kassiten. New Haven, Connecticut, 1954.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. ‘Noms d'animaux en indo-européen.’ In Bull. de la Soc. de Linguistique de Paris, 45 (1949) ff.Google Scholar
Berciu, D. ‘Quelques données préliminaires concernant la civilisation de Cernavoda.’ In Slovenská Archeológia, 12 (1964) ff.Google Scholar
Bilgiç, E. ‘Die Ortsnamen der “kappadokischen” Urkunden in Rahmen der alten Sprachen Anatoliens.’ In Archiv für Orientforschung. 15 (1951) ff.Google Scholar
Bilgiç, E. ‘Die einheimischen Appellativa der kappadokischen Texte und ihre Bedeutung fur die anatolischen Sprachen.’ In Ankara Universitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakultesi Yayinlari, no. 96. Ankara, 1954.Google Scholar
Bittel, K. Grundzüge der Vor- und Frühgeschichte Kleinasiens, 2nd ed. Tübingen, 1950.Google Scholar
Bittel, K., Herre, W., Otten, H., Rohrs, M. and Schaeuble, J. Die hethitischen Grabfunde von Osmankayasi. Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 71 (1958), Berlin.Google Scholar
Blegen, C. W. Troy and the Trojans. London, 1963.Google Scholar
Böhm, J. and others. L' Europe à la fin de l' âge de la pierre. Prague, 1961.Google Scholar
Bosch-Gimpera, P. Les indo-européens: problèmes archéologiques. Paris, 1961. (Translation of El problema indoeuropeo . Mexico City, 1960.)Google Scholar
Bosch-Gimpera, P. ‘El neolítico y la discusión del problema indoeuropeo.’ In Anales de Antropologia, 3 (Mexico City, 1966) ff.Google Scholar
Bossert, H. T. Asia. Istanbul, 1946.Google Scholar
Bossert, H. T. Ein hethitisches Königssiegel. Istanbul, 1944.Google Scholar
Brandenstein, W. . ‘Die alten Inder in Vorderasien und die Chronologie des Rigweda.’ In Frühgeschichte und Sprachwissenschaft, I (ed. , Brandenstein ) (Vienna, 1948) ff.Google Scholar
Brjussow, A. J. Geschichte der neolithischen Stämme im europäischen Teil des UdSSR. Berlin, 1957.Google Scholar
Childe, V. G. The Aryans. London, 1926.Google Scholar
Childe, V. G. ‘Anatolia and Thrace.’ In Anatolian Studies. 6 (1956) ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childe, V. G. Prehistoric Migrations in Europe. Oslo, 1950.Google Scholar
Childe, V. G. The Dawn of European Civilization, 6th ed. London, 1957.Google Scholar
Collinder, B. Fenno-Ugric Vocabulary. Stockholm, 1955.Google Scholar
Couvreur, W. Review of: Cuny, A. , Invitation à l' étude comparative des langues i.-e. et chamito-sémitiques. In Bibliotheca Orientalis. 3 (1946) ff.Google Scholar
Crossland, R. A. ‘Indo-European origins: the linguistic evidence.’ In Past and Present, 12 (1957) 13 (1958).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossland, R. A. ‘The supposed Anatolian origin of the place-name formants in -ss- and -tt-.’ In Atti del VII Congr. Int. di Scienze Onomastiche, I (Florence, 1961) f.Google Scholar
Devoto, G. Origini indeuropee. Florence, 1961.Google Scholar
Diakonov, I. M. and Tsereteli., G. V. Peredneaziatskiy Sbornik: Voprosy Khettologii i Khurritologii. Moscow, 1961.Google Scholar
Falkenstein, A. ‘Sumerische religiöse Texte: 2. Ein Šulgi-Lied.’ In Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archiiologie. 50 (N.F. Ib, 1946) ff.Google Scholar
Forrer, E. ‘Die Inschriften und Sprachen des Hatti-Reiches.’ In Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischcn Gesellschaft. 76 (1922) ff.Google Scholar
Friedrich, J. Hethitisch und ‘Kleinasiatische’ Sprachen. Berlin, 1931.Google Scholar
Friedrich, J. Hethitisches Elementarbuch, I (2nd ed.), II (1st ed.). Heidelberg, 1960, 1946.Google Scholar
Friedrich, J. Die hethitischen Gesetze. Leiden, 1959.Google Scholar
Friedrich, P. ‘Proto-Indo-European kinship.’ In Ethnology, 5 (1966) ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamkrelidze, T. V. ‘The Akkado-Hittite syllabary and the problem of the origin of the Hittite script.’ In Archiv Orientálni. 29 (1961) ff.Google Scholar
Gamkrelidze, T. V. ‘ “Anatolian languages” and the problem of Indo-European migration into Asia Minor.’ In Preliminary Reports of the VIIth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences. Moscow, 1964.Google Scholar
Georgiev, V. Vorgriechische Sprachwissenschaft I, II. Sofia, 1941, 1945.Google Scholar
Georgiev, V. Contribution à l' étude de la toponymie grecque. Sofia, 1948.Google Scholar
Georgiev, V. ‘La toponymie ancienne de la péninsule balkanique et la thèse méditerranéenne.’ In Linguistique balkanique, 3 (1961) ff.Google Scholar
Georgiev, V. I. Introduzione alla storia delle lingue indeuropee. Rome, 1966. (Section ‘G’.)Google Scholar
Ghirshman, R. Iran. London, 1954.Google Scholar
Gimbutas, M. ‘The Indo-Europeans: archaeological problems.’ In American Anthropologist, 65 (1963) ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gimbutas, M. ‘Culture change in Europe at the start of the second millennium B.C.’ In Selected Papers of the Vth Int. Congr. of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (Philadelphia, 1956) ff.Google Scholar
Gimbutas, M. The Prehistory of Eastern Europe. Cambridge, Mass., 1956.Google Scholar
Goetze, A. ‘The theophorous elements of the Anatolian proper names from Cappadocia.’ In Language, 29 (1953) ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetze, A. ‘The cultures of early Anatolia.’ In Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 97 (1953) ff.Google Scholar
Goetze, A. ‘The linguistic continuity of Anatolia as shown by its proper names.’ In Journal of Cuneiform Studies. 8 (1954) ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetze, A. ‘Some groups of ancient Anatolian proper names.’ In Language, 30 (1954) ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetze, A. Kleinasien, 2nd ed. Munich, 1957.Google Scholar
Goetze, A. ‘Suffixes in “Kanishite” proper names.’ In Revue hittite et asianique. 66 (1960) ff.Google Scholar
Gordon, D. H. ‘The chronology of the third cultural period at Tepe Hissar.’ In Iraq, 13 (1951) ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, D. H. The Prehistoric Background of Indian Culture, 2nd ed. Bombay, 1960.Google Scholar
Gurney, O. R. ‘Mita of Pahhuwa.’ In Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology. 28 (1948) ff.Google Scholar
Gurney, O. R. The Hittites, 2nd ed. London, 1954.Google Scholar
Gusmani, R. Lydisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg, 1964.Google Scholar
Güterbock, H. G. ‘Toward a definition of the term Hittite.’ In Oriens, 10 (1957) ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güterbock, H. G. ‘A view of Hittite literature.’ In Journal of the American Oriental Society. 84 (1964) ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haley, J. B. and Blegen, C. W. ‘The coming of the Greeks.’ In American Journal of Archaeology. 32 (1928) ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauschild, R. Die indogermanischen Völker und Sprachen Kleinasiens. Berlin, 1964.Google Scholar
Hauschild, R. Über die frühesten Arier im alten Orient. Berlin, 1962.Google Scholar
Häusler, A. ‘Ockergrabkultur und Schnurkeramik.’ In Jahresschrift fürmitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte, 47 (1963) ff.Google Scholar
Hawkes, C. F. C. The Prehistoric Foundations of Europe to the Mycenaean Age. London, 1940.Google Scholar
Hencken, H. ‘Indo-European languages and archaeology.’ In American Anthropologist, 57 (1955); also ,American Anthropological Association Memoir.Google Scholar
Houwink ten Cate, P. H. J. The Luwian Population Groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera during the Hellenistic Period. Leiden, 1961.Google Scholar
Ivanov, V. V. ‘Sotsial'naya organizatsiya indoevropeyskikh plemen po lingvisticheskim dannym.’ In Vestnik Istorii Mirovoy Kul'tury, 21 (1957) ff.Google Scholar
Jacobsohn, H. Arier und Ugrofinnen. Göttingen, 1922.Google Scholar
Jokl, N. ‘Phryger.’ In Ebert, M. , Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte, 10 (1928) ff.Google Scholar
Jokl, N. ‘Thraker.’ In Ebert, M. Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte, 13 (1929) ff.Google Scholar
Kammenhuber, A. ‘Zur Stellung des Hethitisch-Luvischen innerhalb der indogermanischen Gemeinsprache.’ In Z. f. vergleich. Sprachforschung, 77 (1961) ff.Google Scholar
Kammenhuber, A. ‘Die hethitische Geschichtsschreibung.’ In Saeculum, 9 (1958) ff.Google Scholar
Kammenhuber, A. ‘Zur hethitisch-luvischen Sprachgruppe.’ In Z. f. vergleich. Sprachforschung, 76 (1960) ff.Google Scholar
Kammenhuber, A. Hippologia Hethitica. Wiesbaden, 1961.Google Scholar
Kammenhuber, A. Die Arier im Vorderen Orient. Heidelberg, 1968. (Section III.)Google Scholar
Keith, A. B. ‘The age of the Rigveda.’ In Cambridge History of India, I (ed. Rapson, E. J. ), 1922.Google Scholar
Kilian, L. ‘Schnurkeramik und Ockergrabkultur.’ In Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja/Finska Fornminnesföreningens Tidskrift, 59 (1958) ff.Google Scholar
Köszegi, F. ‘Contribution à la question de l'origine des tombes à ocre en Hongrie.’ In Archaeologiai Ertesitö, 89 (1962) ff.Google Scholar
Krahe, H. Sprache und Vorzeit. Heidelberg, 1954.Google Scholar
Krahe, H. Sprachverwandtschaft im alten Europa. Heidelberg, 1931.Google Scholar
Krause, W. ‘Tocharisch.’ In Spuler, B. , Handbuch der Orientalistik, IV, 3. Leiden, 1955.Google Scholar
Kronasser, H. ‘Zur Verwandtschaft zwischen Finnisch-Ugrisch und Indo-germanisch.’ In Frühgeschichte und Sprachwissenschaft, I (ed. Brandenstein, ) (Vienna, 1948) ff.Google Scholar
Kronasser, H. Vergleichende Laut-und Formenlehre des Hethitischen. Heidelberg, 1956.Google Scholar
Landsberger, B. ‘Assyrische Konigsliste und “dunkles Zeitalter”; VI: Exkurs I.’ In Journal of Cuneiform Studies. 8 (1954) ff. ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, G. S. ‘The present state of Tocharian studies.’ In Proc. of the VIIIth Int. Congr. of Linguists (Oslo, 1958) ff.Google Scholar
Laroche, E. ‘Études “proto-hittites”.’ In Revue d'Assyriologie et d'Archéogie orientale. 41 (1948) ff.Google Scholar
Laroche, E. Recueil d' onomastique hittite. Paris, 1952.Google Scholar
Laroche, E. ‘Comparaison du louvite et du lycien.’ In Bull. de la Soc. de Linguistique de Paris, 53 (1958) ff., and 55 (1960) ff.Google Scholar
Laroche, E. Dictionnaire de la langue louvite. Paris, 1959.Google Scholar
Laroche, E. Les hiéroglyphes hittites, 1: l' écriture. Paris, 1960.Google Scholar
Lees, R. B. ‘The basis of glottochronology.’ In Language, 29 (1953) ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lejeune, M. ‘Linguistique préhellénique.’ In Revue des éudes anciennes. 49 (1947) ff.Google Scholar
Mayrhofer, M. Die Indo-Arier im alten Vorderasien (Wiesbaden, 1966).Google Scholar
Meillet, A. ‘Essai de chronologie des langues indo-européennes.’ In Bull. de la Soc. de Linguistique de Paris, 32 (1931) ff.Google Scholar
Meillet, A. Introduction à l'étude comparative des langues indo-européennes, 8th ed. Paris, 1937 (reprinted by University of Alabama, 1965).Google Scholar
Mellaart, J. ‘The end of the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia and the Aegean.’ In American Journal of Archaeology. 62 (1958) ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellink, M. J. Dark Ages and Nomads: Studies in Iranian and Anatolian Archaeology (Publ. of the Netherlands Hist. and Arch. Inst. in Istanbul, 18). Istanbul, 1964.Google Scholar
Meriggi, P. ‘Der Indogermanismus des Lykischen.’ In Arntz, H. , Germanen und Indogermanen: Festschrift H. Hirt, II. Heidelberg, 1936 ff.Google Scholar
Meriggi, P. ‘Der indogermanische Charakter des Lydischen.’ Ibid. ff.
Meyer, E. ‘Die ältesten datierten Zeugnisse der iranischen Sprache und der zoroastrichen Religion.’ In Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Sprachforschung, 42 (1909) ff.Google Scholar
Mylonas, G. E. ‘The Luvian invasions of Greece.’ In Hesperia, 31 (1962) ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, G. Untersuchungen zum Weiterleben hethitischen und luwischen Sprachgutes in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit. Wiesbaden, 1961.Google Scholar
Neustupný, E. and Neustupný, J. N. Czechoslovakia before the Slavs. London, 1961.Google Scholar
O'Callaghan, R. T. and Dumont, P. E. Aram Naharaim: a Contribution to the History of Upper Mesopotamia in the Second Millennium B.C. Rome, 1948.Google Scholar
Otten, H. ‘Zum Palaischen.’ In Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archiiologie. 48 (1944) ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otten, H. ‘Zu den Anfangen des hethitischen Geschichte.’ In Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. 83 (1951) ff.Google Scholar
Otten, H. Zur grammatikalischen und lexikalischen Bestimmung des Luvischen. Berlin, 1953.Google Scholar
Otten, H. ‘Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy im Jahre 1952: Die inschriftlichen Funde.’ In Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. 86 (1953) ff.Google Scholar
Otten, H. Hethitische Totenrituale. Berlin, 1958.Google Scholar
Palmer, L. R. ‘Luvian and Linear A.’ In Transactions of the Philosophical Society. 1958 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, L. R. The Latin Language. London, 1954.Google Scholar
Palmer, L. R. ‘Mycenaean Greek texts from Pylos.’ In Transactions of the Philological Society. (1954) ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, H. ‘Le groupement des dialectes indo-européens.’ In Konglige Danske videnskaplige Selskap, historisk-filosqfiska Meddelninger. II. Copenhagen, 1925.Google Scholar
Pedersen, H. Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge, Mass., 1931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, H. ‘Lykisch und Hittitisch.’ Konglige Danske videnskaplige Selskap, historisk-filosqfiska Meddelninger. 30. Copenhagen, 1945.Google Scholar
Piggott, S. Prehistoric India. London, 1950.Google Scholar
Polomé, E. ‘Considérations sur la valeur des données lexicostatistiques.’ In Communications et Rapports du ler Congrès International de Dialectologie Générale (Louvain, 1964) ff.Google Scholar
Porzig, W. Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets. Heidelberg, 1954.Google Scholar
Powell, T. G. E. ‘Some implications of chariotry.’ In Culture and environment: Essays in Honour of Sir Cyril Fox (ed. Foster, I. L. and Alcock, L. ) (London, 1963) ff.Google Scholar
Pritchard, J. B. and others. Ancient Near Eastern Texts to illustrate the Old Testament. Princeton, 1950.Google Scholar
Pulgram, E. The Tongues of Italy. Cambridge, Mass., 1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodden, R. J. ‘Recent discoveries from prehistoric Macedonia.’ In Balkan Studies, 5 (1964) ff.Google Scholar
Salonen, A. Die Landfahrzeuge des alten Mesopotamien. Helsinki, 1951.Google Scholar
Salonen, A. Hippologica Accadica. Helsinki, 1955.Google Scholar
Scherer, A. ‘Indogermanische Altertumskunde (seit 1956).’ In Kratylos, 10 (1965) ff.Google Scholar
Schmökel, H. ‘Die Kassiten.’ In Spuler, B. , Handbuch der Orientalistik, II, 3 (Leiden, 1957) ff.Google Scholar
Sommer, F. Hethiter und Hethitisch. Stuttgart, 1947.Google Scholar
Sommer, F. and Falkenstein, A. Die hethitisch-akkadische Bilingue des Hattušili I. Munich, 1938.Google Scholar
Struve, K. W. Die Einzelgrabkultur in Schleswig-Holstein und ihre kontinentalen Beziehungen. Neumünster, 1955.Google Scholar
Sturtevant, E. H. and Bechtel, G. Hittite Chrestomathy. Baltimore, 1935.Google Scholar
Sturtevant, E. H. and Hahn, E. A. A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language, I. New Haven, 1951.Google Scholar
Swadesh, M. ‘Towards greater accuracy in lexicostatistic dating.’ In International Journal of American Linguistics, 21 (1955) ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thieme, P. Die Heimat der indogermanischen Gemeinsprache. Abhandhlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, II. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz. Wiesbaden, 1953.Google Scholar
Thieme, P. ‘The “Aryan” gods of the Mitanni treaties.’ In Journal of the American Oriental Society. 80 (1960) ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tritsch, F. J. ‘Lycian, Luwian and Hittite.’ In Archiv Orientálni. 18 (Symbolae B. Hrozný III), 1950 ff.Google Scholar
Van der Waals, J. D. Prehistoric Disc Wheels in the Netherlands. Groningen, 1964.Google Scholar
Vendryes, J. ‘Les correspondances de vocabulaire entre l'indo-iranien et l'italoceltique.’ In Mémoires de la Soc. de Linguistique de Paris, 20 (1918) ff.Google Scholar
Walser, G. and others. ‘Neuere Hethiterforschung:’ Historia, Einzelschrift 7, 1964.Google Scholar
Weidner, E. F. Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien, I (Boghazköi-Studien. 8, ed., Weber, O. ). Leipzig, 1923.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×